Tense

[Henning Garvin]

I would
>like to swap notes with you in grammatically comparing Winnebago to
>Omaha, but my own knowledge of Winnebago is almost nill.  Could I ask
>you to help analyze your examples morphemically?

Sure thing!

> >Jagu aire?
> >Jagu e-ire?
> >What say-3Pl?
> >What did they say?
>
> >Jagu anaaNk?
> >Jagu e-naaNk?
> >What say-3Pl?
> >What are they saying?
>
>So /jagu/ means "what".  I assume this is equivalent to Lakhota /taku/.
>
>Then we have /a/ or /e/ for "say".  In OP it's the same.  By Bob's
>and John's analysis, /e/ should be considered the basic form, and /a/
>would be the ablauted form caused by an original leading a- in the
>following particle.
>
>Finally, we have two alternative modal particles, /ire/ and /naaNk/,
>at the end, which close the sentence.  Both indicate that the subject
>of /e/ is 3rd person plural.  Both force the /e/ to ablaut to /a/.
>But while /ire/ implies that the action is in the past, /naaNk/ implies
>that it is in the present.
>
>Have I understood your examples correctly?

Absolutely.

>
>If so, could /naaNk/ be described as a positional?
>To me, it looks like OP /dhaNkHa'/, which shows up
>now and then in the Dorsey texts, apparently as the
>plural of /dhiNkhe'/, but which is denied by our
>modern speakers.  In OP, these two terms seem to
>have the flavor of "sitting", or "object of the
>action".

That is another good question.  As far as I can tell /naaNk/ simply implies
plural regardless of the orientation of the subject.  So it can be used when
talking about a group of objects that are positioned vertically,
horizontally, moving, 'sitting' or a mixture of all of these.  It is curious
though, that it occurs in the place where the positional would have occurred
if the subject were singular.  Both after the verb and also in the
demonstrative.

As far as demostratives go,
basically /naNka/ would be 'that (sitting)' while /naaNka/ would be 'those'.
  The demonstrative is generally described as a the form
/-ga/ attached to the positionals (/je/, /naNk/,/ak/) and to the plural form
/naaNk/.  Perhaps this somehow has lost its positional flavor over time.  I
am hoping someone with the comparative Siouan knowledge will be able to help
out on this one.



>
>In OP, at least in the 19th century, sentences
>seldom ended with a verb; rather the final verb
>was almost always followed by one or more particles
>expressing the modality and the demand of the
>sentence.  Your Winnebago particles /ire/ and
>/naaNk/ seem to behave in the same way.
>
>In 19th century OP, the modal particle /i/
>directly followed a verb and made you focus on it
>as a discrete action.  Alternatively, you could
>simply finish a sentence with a positional after
>the verb; this would indicate that the verb was
>the state of affairs with its subject in the
>classificatory state implied by the positional
>itself.  Here, we set the scene rather than
>describe an occurrence.  Or, as Bob has put it,
>the action is progressive.
>
>I don't recall whether modal particles in this
>position force ablaut in OP; my feeling is that
>they don't.  However, they do force ablaut on the
>potential particle /ttE/ in constructions that
>indicate a fairly definite future:
>
>       tta miNkHe        I will
>       tta tHe           you will, s/he will
>       tta akHa          s/he will of their own accord
>       tt(a) oNgatHoN    we will
>
>The Winnebago particle /ire/ is especially interesting
>to me because of a discussion we had on the list just
>over a year ago about two alternate OP particles, /i/
>and /bi/.  The /bi/ at least ought to be cognate with
>Lakhota /pi/ and Chiwere /wi/.  Doesn't Winnebago also
>have a pluralizing particle /wi/?  I seem to recall
>from Lipkind that both /wi/ and /ire/ existed as
>pluralizing particles in Winnebago, but that /ire/ was
>only used in the 3rd person-- is this correct?

Yes, /-wi/ is the general pluralizer except in 3Pl, for which Lipkind does
list /-ire/.


  Anyway,
>in 19th century OP, /bi/ and /i/ both make you focus on
>the act rather than the state, but /bi/ implies hearsay
>while /i/ implies the straight goods.  Used in the 3rd
>person, both can be either singular or plural, though
>in other contexts, such as commands, both can be
>pluralizers.  The view has been that /i/ is a variant
>of /bi/ in its origin, and hence equates to /pi/ and
>/wi/.  But I wonder if it could not actually be cognate
>to at least part of HC /ire/ instead?  Can /ire/ be
>analyzed in Winnebago?  Do we have cognates of /ire/ in
>other Siouan languages?

Again I'm hoping the others can help us out on this.


>
>
> >I think Miner is the only one that correctly lists these forms.  Yet
>there
>
> >is no extensive treatment of tense in his work.  This seems to be the
>only
>
> >form that indicates something took place in the past rather than not in
>the
> >future.
> >Past can be indicated through the absence of the positional in other
>cases.
>
> >waNk  naNka naNwaNnaNks^aNnaN.
>
> >waNk  naNka  naNwaN-naNk-s^aNaN.
>
> >man   that (sit) sing-POS (sit)-Declarative
>
> >That man is singing (seated).
>
> >waNk naNka naNwaNnaN.
>
> >waNk naNka naNwaN- naN
>
> >man that (sit) sing- Declarative.
>
> >That man sang.
>
>So /waNk/ is "man".
>
>The word /naNka/ or /naNk/ is a positional indicating
>"sitting" and "singular".  Does this alternate with
>/naaNka/ or /naaNk/, with a long 'aN', meaning "sitting"
>and "plural"?  In OP, a number of Dhegihan 'aN' sounds
>have shifted to 'iN', apparently when unaccented and
>preceding an accented syllable.  Is shortness of the
>vowel also a factor in this?  Compare OP /dhiNkHe'/,
>"sitting" and "singular" with OP /dhaNkHa'/, "sitting"
>and "plural".

See what I wrote above on demonstratives.  The positional forms in HC are as
follows:

/naNk/    'seated'
/je/      'vertical'
/ak/      'horizontal'
/ak/      'in motion'

All of these indicate singular, and are seemingly replaced by /naaNk/ for
indicating plural.


>
>The verb /naNwaN/ means "sing".
>
>/naN/ is the declarative demand particle.
>
>What is /s^aN/?  That should be important here, but
>I don't see a gloss for it.

Sorry if it isn't clear. /naN/ and /s^aNnaN/ are the declarative suffix.
the former is used follwing a vowel while the latter is used following a
consonant.  This is another interesting area.  The form which follows
vowels, /naN/, is rarely uttered in speech.  Rather the statement is ended
abruptly on the segment preceding the form and is often percieved by
non-speakers as an unreleased stop.  I think what you end up hearing is the
oral closure made for the /n/.    In /s^aNnaN/,which follows a consonant,
only the initial syllable of the form is actually produced, and once again
the statement ends abruptly.  SO the /s^aN/ part of the word is produced,
but not the rest of it.    I am unaware of any attempt to seperate /s^aN/
from /naN/ but given my relative lack of experience that doesn't mean it
isn't happening.  I have been living under the impression these are
allomorphs and never paid them much attention, but if there is another idea
out there regarding this please let me know:)



> >In the above forms the demonstrative can be replaced with the indefenite
> >article -iz^aN or the defenite article -ra with the same effect.
>
> >My question is if you all think there is more to tense in Ho-Chunk than
>what
> >i have read?  What is happening in other Siouan langauges.  I believe I
>read
> >in a paper somewhere that Lakhota also makes a future-non-future
> >distinction.  Do positionals have a similar effect (I'm especially
>curious
>
> >about Chiwere)?  Thank you.
>
>Hope that helps some.  And thank you if you can
>answer some of my scattered questions about Ho-Chunk!
>
>Rory

This helps a great deal.  All of it thus far.  Hope you can make some sense
of what I wrote and it helps to answer your questions.

Henning





_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus